Very harsh assessment of Scalia's legacy from Wake Forest Law Review

[kpete]

written and published before his death ...maybe adds just a tad of credibility re: Scalia's legacy.

Will the Real Justice Scalia Please Stand Up?
Categories: Common Law Comments Off on Will the Real Justice Scalia Please Stand Up?

Justice-Scalia-Many-Faces
Eric J. Segall*

How will history judge Justice Antonin Scalia? He is well-known for scathing dissents and fiery rhetoric as well as his strong advocacy for textualism and originalism. His constant public rant that the Constitution is “dead, dead, dead”[1] has become a mantra for his textual and historical approach to constitutional law. For example, in his recent dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case, he claimed to be so offended by the majority’s “living Constitution” approach that he said the following: “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”[2]

Justice Scalia’s rejection of judicially created rights and limitations that do not have strong textual or historical support is a narrative that should not, however, hold up over time. His entire body of work reflects a Justice who loudly, proudly, and repeatedly calls for textualism and originalism but who in reality decides cases the same way as those judges who self-avowedly believe in a living and flexible Constitution. Over and over, where Justice Scalia’s policy goals are important enough, he leaves textualism and originalism far behind.


.........

......Justice Scalia time and time again has acted aggressively to replace the value judgments of the states and Congress without demonstrating that text or history required that decision. Across broad and important areas of constitutional law including campaign finance reform, affirmative action, federalism, separation of powers, and justiciability Justice Scalia has simply imposed his own policy views on the “people” on questions “properly left to them.”

There is no “hubris” in reasonable disagreement among judges and scholars about the meaning of the Constitution’s vague provisions. But there is enormous “hubris” when a Supreme Court Justice makes repeated, bold, and unprofessional claims against fellow Justices in the face of identical behavior by the Justice making the accusations. In other words, Justice Scalia has no standing to call others out (especially as loudly and as often as he does) for privileging policy over law when he does it all the time himself. Hopefully, history will judge Justice Antonin Scalia accordingly.




above is just a snippet:
http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2015/09/will-the-real-justice-scalia-please-stand-up/

[SoLeftIAmRight]

1. Can we dance now?

...

[sharp_stick]

2. Nicely written

Scalia was a dirtbag and a terrible Justice.

The only thing that makes him an improvement over the equally odious Robert Bork, who Reagan really wanted to nominate for that position, is that if Bork was on the Supreme Court he'd still be there.

[hifiguy]

3. Scalia was a complete fraud

and his "philosophy" was so thoroughly debunked over the years that it is totally discredited among those who have any intellectual integrity.

David Strauss, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, demolished "originalism" to its foundations in "The Living Constitution" - showing that the ancient common law tradition of incrementally evolving jurisprudence is more than an adequate guide to constitutional interpretation. An excellent book, and I recommend it highly.

Additionally, Judge Richard Posner, in a review of Scalia's book defending "originalism/textualism" burned Scalia to the waterline and dynamited the wreckage just for good measure. In a professorial and gentlemanly way, Posner called Scalia an intellectual fraud without the courage of his convictions and confused beyond redemption, not to mention inconsistent and incoherent. Posner is twice as smart as Scalia thought of himself as being. It's a fun read for those interested in legal philosophy. Read it at https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

[Skittles]

6. I cannot understand how people could think he was BRILLIANT

the man was a partisan hack - he was DISGUSTING

[2naSalit]

4. K&R!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. .

[UTUSN]

7. R#33 & K n/t